Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

For Hahnemann's Laws to be correct, we would have to toss out practically everything we have learned over the past two centuries about biology, pharmacology, mathematics, chemistry and physics. Illnesses are not effectively treated by administering substances which cause similar symptoms;

LOL. What about vaccine? Just kidding.

Furthermore, all skeptics should know, that homoepathy doesn't have a chemical basis. It's supposed to have informational basis. Arguing, that there is no active substance left in the water is irrelevant, there isn't supposed to be one. Who receives this information? Our nerve, endocrine and immunity system, which then starts working more effectively, approximately similarly to vaccination. Skeptics claim, that there is no memory of water, that could carry this information. Unfortunately, I didn't find on that website how did they come to this conclusion. Perhaps it's in the videos somewhere, but my computer's sound card is currently out of order

I personally used homeopathy like Paragrippe or Angin Heel for influenza, and the results are about a relief of pain, not bad, but not so great. In my opinion, homeopathy is not suited to fight infections. I'd recommend it on allergies, for example, this is a typical case when the immunity system is misinformed and attacks the home team.

As for infectional diseases, I use MMS and it's certainly not weak, unlike homeopathy. Yeah, my dad got a bit sick when he took it, but these initial effects were only natural and soon subsided, despite of about 12x higher dosage than what caused them. Now he says, that MMS removed sediments and indurations from his joints and inner ear. Furthermore, it saved his teeth from chronical paradontosis which turned into gangrene of gums, that tormented him for many years. It saved at least half of his back teeth from falling out. He loves MMS, recommends it to everyone and even distributes it. So do I. Older people who took it say, that they feel 10-30 years younger. I'm curious what will skeptical websites and pharmacologic corporations say about MMS, and I guess I'll have a good laugh.

For Hahnemann's Laws to be correct, we would have to toss out practically everything we have learned over the past two centuries about biology, pharmacology, mathematics, chemistry and physics. Illnesses are not effectively treated by administering substances which cause similar symptoms;

LOL. What about vaccine? Just kidding.

Furthermore, all skeptics should know, that homoepathy doesn't have a chemical basis. It's supposed to have informational basis. Arguing, that there is no active substance left in the water is irrelevant, there isn't supposed to be one. Who receives this information? Our nerve, endocrine and immunity system, which then starts working more effectively, approximately similarly to vaccination. Skeptics claim, that there is no memory of water, that could carry this information. Unfortunately, I didn't find on that website how did they come to this conclusion. Perhaps it's in the videos somewhere, but my computer's sound card is currently out of order

I personally used homeopathy like Paragrippe or Angin Heel for influenza, and the results are about a relief of pain, not bad, but not so great. In my opinion, homeopathy is not suited to fight infections. I'd recommend it on allergies, for example, this is a typical case when the immunity system is misinformed and attacks the home team.

As for infectional diseases, I use MMS and it's certainly not weak, unlike homeopathy. Yeah, my dad got a bit sick when he took it, but these initial effects were only natural and soon subsided, despite of about 12x higher dosage than what caused them. Now he says, that MMS removed sediments and indurations from his joints and inner ear. Furthermore, it saved his teeth from chronical paradontosis which turned into gangrene of gums, that tormented him for many years. It saved at least half of his back teeth from falling out. He loves MMS, recommends it to everyone and even distributes it. So do I. Older people who took it say, that they feel 10-30 years younger. I'm curious what will skeptical websites and pharmacologic corporations say about MMS, and I guess I'll have a good laugh.

No tests have shown any unambiguous effectiveness for homeopathy. The process of preparation pretty much guarantees than even some hypothetical 'informational' trace is unlikely to remain. That could only be associated with the actual water molecules, and virtually none of the molecules that actually were close to molecules of the original substance remain in the final preparation.The shaking would further remove any 'structure' or pattern that remained as well.

It is really a matter of how much pseudo-science narrative is needed to make it convincing enough to trigger the placebo effect that these things rely upon, and is it Ok to actually sell bottled placebo. The most important thing is to somehow stop people using these things instead of real treatments where placebo doesn't work, and the health problem being addressed is potentially serious, such as with anti-Malaria pills.

It is really a matter of how much pseudo-science narrative is needed to make it convincing enough to trigger the placebo effect that these things rely upon, and is it Ok to actually sell bottled placebo. The most important thing is to somehow stop people using these things instead of real treatments where placebo doesn't work, and the health problem being addressed is potentially serious, such as with anti-Malaria pills.

You know, the problem is, that the scientific medicine doesn't work too... People get disappointed by it and then go for alternative, even without pseudo-scientific propagation. We've got a plenty of stories of our friends who got fucked up by doctors really badly. Yeah, medicinal treatments usually do something, because they're strong, even invasive, but this is no way to achieve a permanent health. Usually, another disease gets to the emptied place, because the body is still weak. Or weakened by the treatment.

I guess there must be something about alternative medicine, because I'm probably the only one of my classmates who didn't yet take a sick leave this year, and there's always someone missing. If the key to health is in not visiting doctors, I can only recommend it. The market model of medicine is obviously not suited to increase health, it reaps diseases like crops and calls it treatment.

Yes there are problems with some 'conventional' medicines, but they do work in most cases, and there is no alternative much of the time. They certainly work way better than homeopathy in any disease which is more than just a matter of feeling unwell.

You are typically picking up on the acknowledged problem areas, while not noticing the bulk of routine medical procedures which actually do work. Even if many serious problems still have people dying earlier than normal, medicine is able to extend the life expectancy over what it would have been.

As an example, HIV-AIDS victims now get up to 12 years of life after developing AIDS, where before the new treatments they lasted less than a year. Whereas herbal treatments for AIDS have yet to show any clear benefit.

EDIT: the most evil examples are homeopathic substitutes for vaccines, which have no effect, whereas real vaccines have been the most successful and effective treatments in modern medicine, virtually wiping out what were serious diseases, especially of children. People advocating those instead of real vaccines, or simply opposing vaccines, now have child deaths on their hands, as outbreaks of once almost banished diseases occur in places where people have stopped getting their kids vaccinated.

EDIT: the most evil examples are homeopathic substitutes for vaccines, which have no effect, whereas real vaccines have been the most successful and effective treatments in modern medicine, virtually wiping out what were serious diseases, especially of children. People advocating those instead of real vaccines, or simply opposing vaccines, now have child deaths on their hands, as outbreaks of once almost banished diseases occur in places where people have stopped getting their kids vaccinated.

amen, bob. i'm so fucking sick of anti-vaccine crackpots. i can still remember my grandmother telling me how terrified she was of catching polio when she was a little girl. even today in eastern slovakia i sometimes see a few gypsy beggars with deformed legs from polio because their parents were either unwilling or unable to get them vaccinated.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen

It is really a matter of how much pseudo-science narrative is needed to make it convincing enough to trigger the placebo effect that these things rely upon, and is it Ok to actually sell bottled placebo. The most important thing is to somehow stop people using these things instead of real treatments where placebo doesn't work, and the health problem being addressed is potentially serious, such as with anti-Malaria pills.

You know, the problem is, that the scientific medicine doesn't work too... People get disappointed by it and then go for alternative, even without pseudo-scientific propagation. We've got a plenty of stories of our friends who got fucked up by doctors really badly. Yeah, medicinal treatments usually do something, because they're strong, even invasive, but this is no way to achieve a permanent health. Usually, another disease gets to the emptied place, because the body is still weak. Or weakened by the treatment.

I guess there must be something about alternative medicine, because I'm probably the only one of my classmates who didn't yet take a sick leave this year, and there's always someone missing. If the key to health is in not visiting doctors, I can only recommend it. The market model of medicine is obviously not suited to increase health, it reaps diseases like crops and calls it treatment.

It's all alternative medicine? You're not doing things like basic hygeine, eating right and avoiding exposure to sick people?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

I'm curious what will skeptical websites and pharmacologic corporations say about MMS, and I guess I'll have a good laugh.

You're still plugging this? Really? Wow.

Sure! It's more and more popular. Dad loves MMS. Me too. Just yesterday I quickly got rid of herpes swiftly, thanks to MMS. I already had a laugh on a certain article, because of it's literal enemy-of-the-state propaganda. But for you, the mighty scientist, is better the research of dr.Hesselink who took care to describe the function of MMS in molecular details. http://bioredox.mysite.com/CLOXhtml/CLOXilus.htm I hope you didn't skip your school too often, because the the page says:This information is taught in graduate-level pre-med university classes. This provides a basis for believing in the power of ClO2 to differentiate selectively when eradicating pathogens from the human body.

I regret that I didn't have this info available sooner. For those who aren't molecular biologists like you, there is another article, how mr. Humble himself refutes idiotic objections to MMS. This is where I found out about dr. Hesselink. His page also contains the bibliography of peer-reviewed science journal articles on MMS! Mwahahahahaha!!!

I'm curious what will skeptical websites and pharmacologic corporations say about MMS, and I guess I'll have a good laugh.

You're still plugging this? Really? Wow.

Sure! It's more and more popular. Dad loves MMS. Me too. Just yesterday I quickly got rid of herpes swiftly, thanks to MMS. I already had a laugh on a certain article, because of it's literal enemy-of-the-state propaganda. But for you, the mighty scientist, is better the research of dr.Hesselink who took care to describe the function of MMS in molecular details. http://bioredox.mysite.com/CLOXhtml/CLOXilus.htm I hope you didn't skip your school too often, because the the page says:This information is taught in graduate-level pre-med university classes. This provides a basis for believing in the power of ClO2 to differentiate selectively when eradicating pathogens from the human body.

I regret that I didn't have this info available sooner. For those who aren't molecular biologists like you, there is another article, how mr. Humble himself refutes idiotic objections to MMS. This is where I found out about dr. Hesselink. His page also contains the bibliography of peer-reviewed science journal articles on MMS! Mwahahahahaha!!!

Did he actually submit to these journals or just list them? Most of what I found were Hesslrink and Humble's whoring on their own sites.

They wouldn't be the first to try to "borrow" credibility.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Did he actually submit to these journals or just list them? Most of what I found were Hesslrink and Humble's whoring on their own sites.

They wouldn't be the first to try to "borrow" credibility.

I don't understand what you mean, please take a look and decide for yourself. This book is a description of how ClO2 to destroys pathogens (specially malaric parasites) selectively. Every paragraph of text is followed by numerous references to already existing research published in scientific journals. The doc demonstrates how exactly ClO2 kills plasmodia, and every detail is supported by several references to research. In light of this evidence, the claim of MMS' effectivity is quite realistic and logical. The real miracle is not why it works, but why nobody discovered this earlier.

Homeopathy is such bullshit I can't see how people keep falling for it. The whole premise is flawed and is completely unscientific.

Answers in Gene Simmons: Damn, you beat me to the video. I love the last part about the homeopathic pints. Those are the kind of alcoholic beverages even an AA member could get down to.

I find it insulting that even though I hate the 'pay-as-you-go' capitalist health care system, I must be in the pocket of "Big PHARMA" if I don't tear apart the scientific methods that they use. Just because I hate the economic model in which they operate doesn't mean I think we should trash all the real advances to science they have made. "Slay the man, not the puck" according to the band Propagandhi, and I think the quote is apt there.

As to you crystal gripping hippies (a quote from my non woo woo infected hippie friend Russ) you need to get with reality and understand that if water has a memory, then your getting a lot more then just "medicine" in it. Your also getting all the piss and shit that's been in it as well.

To Luminon: You talk about scientific medicine and alternative medicine. There's just one catch, buddy. There's only those things proven to work, medicine, and those things either not proven to work or proven not to work, which you call "alternative medicine" and I call bullshit!

Now GET IN THE FEKKIN' SACK!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!

On the other hand... isn't "homeopathy" essentially synonymous with "placebo effect"? Placebo effects are important in Modern Medicine: if you are convinced (beyond any doubt) you are getting better, then you generally are able to alleviate many of the symptoms (physical and mental, AKA psychosomatic symptoms) associated with ill health, even though you aren't actually able to cure the root cause of whatever disease you are afflicted with, or even treat it effectively.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

See, this is the attitude that I most object to in these forums. I'm not saying I don't trust science absolutely and implicitly, I do. I'm also not saying that homeopathy isn't BS, it may very well be. What I'm saying is that science has limits, and imo, too many. Science only really understands the tiniest speck of what goes on in the universe. Furthermore, if science did explain everything, what would there be left to do? Our existence would be more or less meaningless (sort of like the Q). Personally, I think restricting yourself to only things science has been able to explain is locking your mind (not to mention your imagination) inside a tiny little cage.

See, this is the attitude that I most object to in these forums. I'm not saying I don't trust science absolutely and implicitly, I do. I'm also not saying that homeopathy isn't BS, it may very well be. What I'm saying is that science has limits, and imo, too many. Science only really understands the tiniest speck of what goes on in the universe. Furthermore, if science did explain everything, what would there be left to do? Our existence would be more or less meaningless (sort of like the Q). Personally, I think restricting yourself to only things science has been able to explain is locking your mind (not to mention your imagination) inside a tiny little cage.

Smartypants, I like you more and more.

In everyday life we can't do science as scientists imagine it, we can't test everything in laboratory, spend millions of dollars and get a peer review from authorities in the field. We have to rely upon our own judgement and eliminate biases and imprecisions by mental autocorrection. It may even need intuition. In real life, we must resort to total pragmaticism, if something works, then it works, regardless of what some scientists far away somewhere may think. The scientific investigation became too slow, expensive and clumsy, it can't follow us anywhere. Yes, it produces results, but only with what can be easily measured, weighed, observed and reprodced at will. The technology we use is limited. Scientists should be aware of that, instead narrowing the universe into what can be detected by that technology. In this way, no wonder that 95% of the universe's matter and energy escapes the detectors. And this is not just some invisible space debris, it's variety of substances that may very well participate on what we call life, consciousness, emotions, thinking, vacuum, gravity, static electricity, electric charge, vitality, and so on. But also this might be the explanation for what the homeopathy or astrology works with, the "essence" of substances, thoughts and vitality.

I can only repeat the idea of evolutionary paleobiologist from the department of Earth sciences at the university of Cambridge, professor Simon Conway-Morris. As he said, the physical brain might be an antenna, that receives the consciousness, but doesn't create it. (SGU podcast #238)This idea and the courage to express it publically deserves applause from all esotericists in the world. Hear, hear!!!

See, this is the attitude that I most object to in these forums. I'm not saying I don't trust science absolutely and implicitly, I do. I'm also not saying that homeopathy isn't BS, it may very well be. What I'm saying is that science has limits, and imo, too many. Science only really understands the tiniest speck of what goes on in the universe. Furthermore, if science did explain everything, what would there be left to do? Our existence would be more or less meaningless (sort of like the Q). Personally, I think restricting yourself to only things science has been able to explain is locking your mind (not to mention your imagination) inside a tiny little cage.

I think you may have a too narrow view of what counts as science.

In any case, homeopathy falls well within the scope of scientific testability, and it has consistently failed to do better than placebo to any obvious degree, and more often than not has done slightly worse.

Even one of the strong proponents, in a recent interview claiming it has been tested, glossed over her own words that it had been shown effective in 44% of trials - IOW in most it failed.

See, this is the attitude that I most object to in these forums. I'm not saying I don't trust science absolutely and implicitly, I do. I'm also not saying that homeopathy isn't BS, it may very well be. What I'm saying is that science has limits, and imo, too many. Science only really understands the tiniest speck of what goes on in the universe. Furthermore, if science did explain everything, what would there be left to do? Our existence would be more or less meaningless (sort of like the Q). Personally, I think restricting yourself to only things science has been able to explain is locking your mind (not to mention your imagination) inside a tiny little cage.

I think you may have a too narrow view of what counts as science.

Actually, I think the problem is that my view is so much more expansive than many people's definition.

BobSpence1 wrote:

In any case, homeopathy falls well within the scope of scientific testability, and it has consistently failed to do better than placebo to any obvious degree, and more often than not has done slightly worse.

Even one of the strong proponents, in a recent interview claiming it has been tested, glossed over her own words that it had been shown effective in 44% of trials - IOW in most it failed.

I'm sure this is correct. I still hold that mainstream medicine isn't perfect, either. For centuries, hospitals were merely a place where people went to die, and being in one would most certainly make you sicker. Things are much better now, thankfully, but to reject alternate healing methods that could potentially help just because they didn't originate in a laboratory is, imo, irresponsible. For one thing, Big Pharma is a corporate enterprise, first and foremost, which I consider far more frightening. Primates with an upset stomach can go out into the jungle and find just the right plant to eat to solve their problem. In some cases (granted, not all), the more primitive solution may be the better solution.

See, this is the attitude that I most object to in these forums. I'm not saying I don't trust science absolutely and implicitly, I do. I'm also not saying that homeopathy isn't BS, it may very well be. What I'm saying is that science has limits, and imo, too many. Science only really understands the tiniest speck of what goes on in the universe. Furthermore, if science did explain everything, what would there be left to do? Our existence would be more or less meaningless (sort of like the Q). Personally, I think restricting yourself to only things science has been able to explain is locking your mind (not to mention your imagination) inside a tiny little cage.

Smartypants, I like you more and more.

In everyday life we can't do science as scientists imagine it, we can't test everything in laboratory, spend millions of dollars and get a peer review from authorities in the field. We have to rely upon our own judgement and eliminate biases and imprecisions by mental autocorrection. It may even need intuition. In real life, we must resort to total pragmaticism, if something works, then it works, regardless of what some scientists far away somewhere may think. The scientific investigation became too slow, expensive and clumsy, it can't follow us anywhere. Yes, it produces results, but only with what can be easily measured, weighed, observed and reprodced at will. The technology we use is limited. Scientists should be aware of that, instead narrowing the universe into what can be detected by that technology. In this way, no wonder that 95% of the universe's matter and energy escapes the detectors. And this is not just some invisible space debris, it's variety of substances that may very well participate on what we call life, consciousness, emotions, thinking, vacuum, gravity, static electricity, electric charge, vitality, and so on. But also this might be the explanation for what the homeopathy or astrology works with, the "essence" of substances, thoughts and vitality.

I can only repeat the idea of evolutionary paleobiologist from the department of Earth sciences at the university of Cambridge, professor Simon Conway-Morris. As he said, the physical brain might be an antenna, that receives the consciousness, but doesn't create it. (SGU podcast #238)This idea and the courage to express it publically deserves applause from all esotericists in the world. Hear, hear!!!

Thanks.

I think the problem is that a lot of the things we experience are mysterious because we don't know what causes them. Without knowing the cause, it makes it very difficult to create the effects in any way predictable enough to test them scientifically.

See, this is the attitude that I most object to in these forums. I'm not saying I don't trust science absolutely and implicitly, I do. I'm also not saying that homeopathy isn't BS, it may very well be. What I'm saying is that science has limits, and imo, too many. Science only really understands the tiniest speck of what goes on in the universe. Furthermore, if science did explain everything, what would there be left to do? Our existence would be more or less meaningless (sort of like the Q). Personally, I think restricting yourself to only things science has been able to explain is locking your mind (not to mention your imagination) inside a tiny little cage.

I think you may have a too narrow view of what counts as science.

Actually, I think the problem is that my view is so much more expansive than many people's definition.

I am genuinely curious how that works out to support your statements above.I doubt anyone here is claiming that Science explains everything, either now or in the foreseeable future.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

In any case, homeopathy falls well within the scope of scientific testability, and it has consistently failed to do better than placebo to any obvious degree, and more often than not has done slightly worse.

Even one of the strong proponents, in a recent interview claiming it has been tested, glossed over her own words that it had been shown effective in 44% of trials - IOW in most it failed.

I'm sure this is correct. I still hold that mainstream medicine isn't perfect, either. For centuries, hospitals were merely a place where people went to die, and being in one would most certainly make you sicker. Things are much better now, thankfully, but to reject alternate healing methods that could potentially help just because they didn't originate in a laboratory is, imo, irresponsible. For one thing, Big Pharma is a corporate enterprise, first and foremost, which I consider far more frightening. Primates with an upset stomach can go out into the jungle and find just the right plant to eat to solve their problem. In some cases (granted, not all), the more primitive solution may be the better solution.

'Alternative' medicine is NOT typically rejected or discounted 'just because it doesn't originate in a laboratory'. That is a very poor argument. It sounds like the straw-man characterisation of science we hear from Theists that science is only about laboratories and test-tubes, which is very disappointing.

It is rejected for various reasons, but mainly because of a lack of adequate testing or evidence to show it actually works, especially if there is no plausible mechanism for how it could work.

Not saying they can't occasionally unfairly reject some things.

Some alternative medicines, especially herbal, are also subject to wild variations in amount of active ingredient. Herbal medicine can be effective, as you say, and many 'conventional' medicines have been derived from them, often to produce more effective and consistent treatments than the original. But without testing, and claims often based on purely intuitive or associative 'reasoning', we should be skeptical. Alternative medicines have on occasion actually caused harm: http://whatstheharm.net/alternativemedicine.html.

I am genuinely curious how that works out to support your statements above.I doubt anyone here is claiming that Science explains everything, either now or in the foreseeable future.

What I mean is that I believe science can ultimately explain everything, at least in theory, but I also include a lot of things that I think most atheists would call "supernatural" or just downright crazy, like telepathy for instance. Things I've experienced and my understanding of how the world works just make infinitely more sense if I allow for certain phenomena that science hasn't explained.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is rejected for various reasons, but mainly because of a lack of adequate testing or evidence to show it actually works, especially if there is no plausible mechanism for how it could work.

I guess I'm just saying that I don't think that lack of evidence is proof that some alternate treatments aren't or can't be effective. And "plausible mechanism" is a somewhat subjective criterion.

I am genuinely curious how that works out to support your statements above.I doubt anyone here is claiming that Science explains everything, either now or in the foreseeable future.

What I mean is that I believe science can ultimately explain everything, at least in theory, but I also include a lot of things that I think most atheists would call "supernatural" or just downright crazy, like telepathy for instance. Things I've experienced and my understanding of how the world works just make infinitely more sense if I allow for certain phenomena that science hasn't explained.

Even if science cannot explain something like 'telepathy', scientific tests can help establish whether there really is something to explain at all. I guess that means determining whether more mundane explanations adequately fit what you might see as 'supernatural' event, or evidence for one.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is rejected for various reasons, but mainly because of a lack of adequate testing or evidence to show it actually works, especially if there is no plausible mechanism for how it could work.

I guess I'm just saying that I don't think that lack of evidence is proof that some alternate treatments aren't or can't be effective. And "plausible mechanism" is a somewhat subjective criterion.

Of course, 'lack of evidence' is not proof. Dammit, it is annoying to hear someone using these lame, straw-man arguments, like a Theist trying to justify his belief.

With stuff you may actually put in your body, some direct proof of both effectiveness and safety, ideally a clinical trial, would seem to be a good idea. Otherwise, as history shows, such 'medicines' could actually do something bad to you, no matter how much you or they 'believe' in it. Of course 'plausible' is a bit subjective, that's why I used it, to allow as much 'slack' as possible to your ideas. My point was simply that if they can't refer to some actual tests, and not even describe some mechanism that is vaguely consistent with the way other medicines are known to work, there really is no good reason to try it, unless you are very desperate, perhaps.

Even if science cannot explain something like 'telepathy', scientific tests can help establish whether there really is something to explain at all. I guess that means determining whether more mundane explanations adequately fit what you might see as 'supernatural' event, or evidence for one.

I agree.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Of course, 'lack of evidence' is not proof. Dammit, it is annoying to hear someone using these lame, straw-man arguments, like a Theist trying to justify his belief.

Actually, I think the problem is that my view is so much more expansive than many people's definition.

No, the problem is it doesn't work and has been proven to be ineffective. If it did work it would break everything we know about medicine, chemistry and biology. Luckily it doesn't work, so reality is safe.

Medicine gave homeopathy a fair shake. If it had *ever* been shown to have any usefulness beyond the placebo effect, it would have been incorporated into established medicine.

You don't think drug companies would love it if they could patent and sell a bunch of shit that is basically free to make? The fact of it is, doing a genuine study on the effectiveness of homeopathy is dirt simple, and people have done it. It doesn't work. Full stop. What the heck is there to argue about? Proponents can't show why it would work in theory, and they can't show that it works in real trials.

If we were talking about some standard drug the pharma companies made no-one would care because there isn't that fun flavor of woo and conspiracy theories attached to it.

Actually, I think the problem is that my view is so much more expansive than many people's definition.

No, the problem is it doesn't work and has been proven to be ineffective. If it did work it would break everything we know about medicine, chemistry and biology. Luckily it doesn't work, so reality is safe.

Medicine gave homeopathy a fair shake. If it had *ever* been shown to have any usefulness beyond the placebo effect, it would have been incorporated into established medicine.

You don't think drug companies would love it if they could patent and sell a bunch of shit that is basically free to make? The fact of it is, doing a genuine study on the effectiveness of homeopathy is dirt simple, and people have done it. It doesn't work. Full stop. What the heck is there to argue about? Proponents can't show why it would work in theory, and they can't show that it works in real trials.

If we were talking about some standard drug the pharma companies made no-one would care because there isn't that fun flavor of woo and conspiracy theories attached to it.

The statement you quoted was actually no longer about homeopathy. I granted that it is probably a sham, but was speaking about a more general dismissive attitude.

Actually, I think the problem is that my view is so much more expansive than many people's definition.

No, the problem is it doesn't work and has been proven to be ineffective. If it did work it would break everything we know about medicine, chemistry and biology. Luckily it doesn't work, so reality is safe.

Medicine gave homeopathy a fair shake. If it had *ever* been shown to have any usefulness beyond the placebo effect, it would have been incorporated into established medicine.

You don't think drug companies would love it if they could patent and sell a bunch of shit that is basically free to make? The fact of it is, doing a genuine study on the effectiveness of homeopathy is dirt simple, and people have done it. It doesn't work. Full stop. What the heck is there to argue about? Proponents can't show why it would work in theory, and they can't show that it works in real trials.

If we were talking about some standard drug the pharma companies made no-one would care because there isn't that fun flavor of woo and conspiracy theories attached to it.

The statement you quoted was actually no longer about homeopathy. I granted that it is probably a sham, but was speaking about a more general dismissive attitude.

Yea I know I could have quoted better, but it is not a narrow attitude to reject things that have been disproven. That is my point; once something is conclusively shown to be a sham why should we continue to give it credibility? Scientists have better things to do than debunk fads over and over.

See, this is the attitude that I most object to in these forums. I'm not saying I don't trust science absolutely and implicitly, I do. I'm also not saying that homeopathy isn't BS, it may very well be. What I'm saying is that science has limits, and imo, too many. Science only really understands the tiniest speck of what goes on in the universe. Furthermore, if science did explain everything, what would there be left to do? Our existence would be more or less meaningless (sort of like the Q). Personally, I think restricting yourself to only things science has been able to explain is locking your mind (not to mention your imagination) inside a tiny little cage.

Science has limits, (and there is quite a bit of Junk Science out there in the world) but it usually improves for the better given time, as does one of it's important by-products: technology.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - With the European Commission soon to launch a review of EU pharmaceutical laws, the homeopathy industry feels the time is ripe to launch fresh lobbying push in Brussels to have the EU force all member states to provide access to the product from public health systems and loosen up the approval process for their remedies.

Representatives of the industry, practitioners and patients that use homeopathic products are to hold an EU Homeopathy Day in the European Parliament on 23 March as the kick-off for a new effort to win EU-level alternative-medicine-friendly legislation.

Industry lobbyists and their MEP allies believe that with the new European Commission expected to launch a review of EU pharmaceutical laws at some point during its four-year term, now is their chance to press their case.

Nice knowin' ya EU and your widely publicized health system.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Indeed, it is quite a few centuries from being perfect..... but it does a better job than most alternatives, when it is efficiently administered. That aside, the 70s and 80s provided some of the best examples of inefficiently run clinics, at least where I currently live and probably elsewhere in the world, and it is none-too-coincidental that many examples of homeopathy arose during those times.

I still maintain that 'feeling better' (AKA the placebo effect) often does a better job of alleviating symptoms (and maintaining functionality) than most so-called treatments do.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

It is really a matter of how much pseudo-science narrative is needed to make it convincing enough to trigger the placebo effect that these things rely upon, and is it Ok to actually sell bottled placebo. The most important thing is to somehow stop people using these things instead of real treatments where placebo doesn't work, and the health problem being addressed is potentially serious, such as with anti-Malaria pills.

You know, the problem is, that the scientific medicine doesn't work too... People get disappointed by it and then go for alternative, even without pseudo-scientific propagation. We've got a plenty of stories of our friends who got fucked up by doctors really badly. Yeah, medicinal treatments usually do something, because they're strong, even invasive, but this is no way to achieve a permanent health. Usually, another disease gets to the emptied place, because the body is still weak. Or weakened by the treatment.

I guess there must be something about alternative medicine, because I'm probably the only one of my classmates who didn't yet take a sick leave this year, and there's always someone missing. If the key to health is in not visiting doctors, I can only recommend it. The market model of medicine is obviously not suited to increase health, it reaps diseases like crops and calls it treatment.

And I've gone a 3 year stretch before without getting much more than a sneeze or two, so what? I don't take vitamins and don't eat all that great either. It means nothing except that you're willing to take anecdotal evidence as proof that something works.

It's the same thing every time, a person gets better (As if it's impossible to recover from something without the aide of medicine!) while on some crackpot alternative medicine and confirmation bias carries it the rest of the way. The only extreme plausible example would be that some forms of alternative medicine only has an effect on a very small percentage of the population so no positive effects would be seen in any clinical trials. Water doesn't carry memories in any way, shape, or form that would effect the body, get over it.

I don't know why I bother since convincing Luminon of anything other than what he already believes is impossible. I think he's the same kid that said he can experience OBEs and actually see things out of viewing distance/angle but is too lazy (cognitively dissonant) to set up an extremely simple test to prove it.

I don't know why I bother since convincing Luminon of anything other than what he already believes is impossible. I think he's the same kid that said he can experience OBEs and actually see things out of viewing distance/angle but is too lazy (cognitively dissonant) to set up an extremely simple test to prove it.

At the ripe old age of 21, his frontal lobes aren't fully grown yet. Early adulthood is typically a period of "believe whatever you want"... and many individuals will also become atheists during this time.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

No, the problem is it doesn't work and has been proven to be ineffective. If it did work it would break everything we know about medicine, chemistry and biology. Luckily it doesn't work, so reality is safe.

Reality is dead. - Friedrich Nietzsche's android ghost

Di66en6ion wrote:

And I've gone a 3 year stretch before without getting much more than a sneeze or two, so what? I don't take vitamins and don't eat all that great either. It means nothing except that you're willing to take anecdotal evidence as proof that something works.

I'm not, this is why I don't accept anecdotal evidence of pharmacologic industry.

Di66en6ion wrote:

It's the same thing every time, a person gets better (As if it's impossible to recover from something without the aide of medicine!) while on some crackpot alternative medicine and confirmation bias carries it the rest of the way. The only extreme plausible example would be that some forms of alternative medicine only has an effect on a very small percentage of the population so no positive effects would be seen in any clinical trials. Water doesn't carry memories in any way, shape, or form that would effect the body, get over it.

Except there are still new discoveries in homeopathy. There is a research of my countryman, Jan Frank, who uses patient's symptoms and horoscope to determine what homeopathic remedy should be mixed, and then this remedy will cure the symptoms. He's quite succesful. And there's another homeopath, some englishman, who discovered, that homeopathic solutions of pure elements of periodic table cause specific states of consciousness. The result is similar for groups of elements, like for lanthanoids, actinoids, heavy elements, and so on. This field is developing, there is in fact a whole underground science. Only a lack of finances and political goodwill on it's side protects the official science from a total revolution.

Di66en6ion wrote:

I don't know why I bother since convincing Luminon of anything other than what he already believes is impossible. I think he's the same kid that said he can experience OBEs and actually see things out of viewing distance/angle but is too lazy (cognitively dissonant) to set up an extremely simple test to prove it.

I'm a pragmatic person. I believe only in what I can see and touch, together with other people. It's not my fault that I'm in a whole sub-culture of psychics. Experience verified on myself and dozens of other people and repeated for many years is pretty damn convincing. Much more than academic opinions of people who never tried anything by themselves. (you know what I mean) Practice is the living reality, theory is fantasy. Anyone in my place would have to acknowledge that. But most of people isn't in my place, this is why I have to be patient with their unfortunate inexperience.

And no, I'm not that kid who claimed anything about astral travelling or distant viewing. I don't know who do you mean, I don't have such a talent. I had only 1 OOBE in my life and I never said I could repeat it any time, because I can't.

Even one of the strong proponents, in a recent interview claiming it has been tested, glossed over her own words that it had been shown effective in 44% of trials - IOW in most it failed.

I'm sure this is correct. I still hold that mainstream medicine isn't perfect, either.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether alternative medicine works*. In fact, it is a "tu quoque" fallacy and you're creating a false dichotomy. "So what if homeopathy has inadequate evidence! Mainstream medicine isn't perfect either!", but even if mainstream scientific medicine were as bad as homoeopathy (which it isn't), that wouldn't vindicate the lack of evidence for homoeopathy or in any way justify it. It is a false dichotomy to claim the effectiveness of one because of the ineffectiveness of the other.

*"alternative medicine" as such doesn't even exist, or rather, is an artificial category of everything that isn't medicine. There is no common principles among different alternative modalities that would qualify such a category (crystal healing certainly differs from homoeopathy and homoeopathy has nothing in common with acupuncture etc.). As such each "alternative" treatment has to be examined separately. A general statement like "alternative medicine is effective" is meaningless.

smartypants wrote:

For centuries, hospitals were merely a place where people went to die, and being in one would most certainly make you sicker. Things are much better now, thankfully, but to reject alternate healing methods that could potentially help just because they didn't originate in a laboratory is, imo, irresponsible.

As BobSpence already pointed out, "alternative healing methods that could potentially help" aren't "rejected" out of hand. They are tested in controlled clinical trials (which are designed in such a way as to eliminate/reduce bias and statistical flukes) and if they fail the trial, they are discarded (if they weren't it wouldn't be science). If they do show an effect, they are tested further and over the years make it into medicine. Take herbs for example, if they have biologically active ingredients, they are tested. If one of the substances in it is shown to be effective, it will be extracted and purified and precisely dosed and then tested in what dosage it produces various effects, so that it can be safely prescribed in the appropriate dose. There's really not much of a difference to the "natural" unrefined alternative, other than that is is SAFER (because concentration can vary strongly in plants and doesn't contain other ingredients that are in the plant and may be harmful) and extensively tested.

smartypants wrote:

For one thing, Big Pharma is a corporate enterprise, first and foremost, which I consider far more frightening.

A couple of points:

1) You should be more frightened of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) than "Big Pharma", because "Big Pharma" at least is heavily regulated by laws and requirements have to be met by every drug before it can be released onto the market. The pharmaceutical industry also has to conduct post marketing analysis for possible emerging side effects (that may crop up on a level that is significant when administered to hundreds of thousands of people, say 200 cases of strong side effects in 300.000 administered doses, that were not directly obvious in the trials of a couple of thousand people) and has to consequently be removed from the market if shown to be risky in any (disproportional) way.

Now look at CAM. There is effectively no regulation of CAM, you don't have to conduct clinical trials, as long as you don't make direct claims that your product "treats x", in case of homoeopathy or supplements or herbal remedies, they're not classified as "drugs", but as "food" and as such do not have to live up to the standard for safety and efficacy that is required of drugs. As long as you make wishy-washy "boosts your immune system"-kind of claims you can sell pretty much whatever the heck you want. No post marketing risk assessment, no trials, no evidence of efficacy (in some cases not even safety) required.

2) The pharma industry is corporate, agreed. They aim for profit, agreed. Sometimes there act in disagreeable or morally ambivalent ways, agreed. Yet, they produce pharmaceuticals that work, cancer drugs, vaccines, drugs for hypertension, drugs for neurological disorders, hormones, insulin and so on that obviously safe the lives of millions of people every year, some of it may be really expensive, but they live up to what they are designed to do in the vast majority of cases.

3) To paint the pharma industry as the dark monolithic bogeyman that leeches off of the suffering of people, is to paint a very simplistic and naive picture indeed. Such a simplification of a complex system is always a good way to leave reality and go down the road were Secret Illuminati Freemasons lurk in the shadows, trying to impose the New World Order, or some such thing. The direction of wacky conspiracies. To take a more realistic approach: How is a drug made? Who makes them? Yes. People in flesh and blood! And hey! They might even have a conscience (hardly believable that such humans could exist). I'd wager a guess that most of those involved in pharmaceutical research, didn't spend years at the university studying pharmacology, molecular biology, cellular biology or something related, because they want to learn how to most effectively rip people off (there are far better venues for that*). In general they want to help people and cure diseases, which is a very human desire as we all can get sick including BigPharma employees and their relatives.

*for example selling pure water with nothing in it and claiming that less content equals more "potency" by virtue of sympathetic magic

smartypants wrote:

Primates with an upset stomach can go out into the jungle and find just the right plant to eat to solve their problem. In some cases (granted, not all), the more primitive solution may be the better solution.

Somehow there seems to be the pervasive idea that "natural" equates with "harmless" or "good", which is insane. Quick! Name one natural thing that can harm you!

Ok, time's up. Did you find something? Or a dozen things? A hundred? Eating a plant can be more dangerous than taking a drug, drugs have been extensively tested and are accompanied by a nice list of "may cause x in 1:1000 cases", whereas plants are not and testing them on yourself is a stupid idea. You can't be your own control group, you can't make an analysis and compare the deviation of the result with the norm if you're alone. You can't at the same time eat the plant and not eat the plant and compare whether it actually did anything (which is one of the many reasons why anecdotal evidence is absolutely useless for judging efficacy). There shouldn't be a double standard between "primitive" (and assumed to be harmless and effective without justification) and based on "modern research".

The only reasonable approach is to say "the better solution" is the one that has more (and better) evidence, whether it be primitive or the product of technology.

And I've gone a 3 year stretch before without getting much more than a sneeze or two, so what? I don't take vitamins and don't eat all that great either. It means nothing except that you're willing to take anecdotal evidence as proof that something works.

I'm not, this is why I don't accept anecdotal evidence of pharmacologic industry.

WTF? Evidence (clinical trials) from industries is anecdotal but yours is not?

Except there are still new discoveries in homeopathy. There is a research of my countryman, Jan Frank, who uses patient's symptoms and horoscope to determine what homeopathic remedy should be mixed, and then this remedy will cure the symptoms. He's quite succesful. And there's another homeopath, some englishman, who discovered, that homeopathic solutions of pure elements of periodic table cause specific states of consciousness. The result is similar for groups of elements, like for lanthanoids, actinoids, heavy elements, and so on. This field is developing, there is in fact a whole underground science. Only a lack of finances and political goodwill on it's side protects the official science from a total revolution.

Bahaha, horoscope? Really? What a joke. I'm sorry that you don't understand how stars/planets/constellations shift and how cold reading works. I'm sure an overdose of heavy metals will cause symptoms but you ingest a small amount of every element every day so don't feed me that BS.

Luminon wrote:

I'm a pragmatic person. I believe only in what I can see and touch, together with other people. It's not my fault that I'm in a whole sub-culture of psychics. Experience verified on myself and dozens of other people and repeated for many years is pretty damn convincing. Much more than academic opinions of people who never tried anything by themselves. (you know what I mean) Practice is the living reality, theory is fantasy. Anyone in my place would have to acknowledge that. But most of people isn't in my place, this is why I have to be patient with their unfortunate inexperience.

And you grossly overestimate the power of your senses. These repeated "tests" you refer to don't indicate much to me since your measure of what constitutes evidence has no standard. You'll wholly disregard medicine that works and call it anecdotal pharmacologic medicine then say yours is the real proven thing... sounds like someone hasn't learned projection either. And no I don't know what you mean, testing things yourself, as a scientist, is very much a part of what science is. You obviously have no clue what a theory is since you just cited the "theories" of men working in homeopathy and then just called it fantasy.

Wow Luminon... there is just so much wrong with your post, I'm no longer surprised you would fall for the theist's BS.

Luminion wrote:

this is why I don't accept anecdotal evidence of pharmacologic industry.

Anecdotal evidence from the pharmacological industry?!?! What do you mean? When did years of scientifically structured double blind studies become "anecdotal"? I personally hate the corporate structure of the industry as I am an anti-capitalist, but to call the studies they do "anecdotal" is complete BS. No, Mr. psychic boy, you obviously have no idea what the difference between anecdotal and scientific evidence is!

Luminon wrote:

Except there are still new discoveries in homeopathy. There is a research of my countryman, Jan Frank, who uses patent's symptoms and horoscope to determine what homeopathic remedy should be mixed

Horoscopes? REALLY!?!?! You realize that astrology has as much scientific evidence supporting it as the "giant Panda's hold up the flat hexagonal earth" theory. Just because you were dumb enough to be fooled by some crackpots, doesn't mean they have scientific credibility. And just because you don't like something, doesn't automatically mean it has nothing but anecdotal evidence to support it.

Luminon wrote:

I'm a pragmatic person.

No, sorry dude, you're a loon. And the more you write, the more you dig yourself into that moniker.

Luminon wrote:

It's not my fault that I'm in a whole sub-culture of psychics.

Uhhh, yeah it is. No one is forcing you to be a part of this "Psychic underground", so yes, it is your fault. And being a part of anything labeled a "psychic underground" fully cements your loon status. If you fall for their BS, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd love to sell you, real cheap too.

Luminon wrote:

Practice is the living reality, theory is fantasy.

So the theory of gravity is fantasy? Germ theory? Theory of Relativity?

Dude, you're a kook who needs a healthy does of dewooifacation. Ever hear of James Randi, Go look him up, he spent his career showing why those charlatans you associate with are nothing more then that.

Luminon, you have done nothing for the cause of Homeopathy here but just make it look crazier then normal. HOROSCOPES?!?!?! Cripes, I thought it was just magic water "medicine", now I learn that it is all wrapped up in the "true" astronomy of Ptolemy! HAHAHA! So if you want to lose your loon status, do some research on REAL SCIENCE and then come back. You might get a better response.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!

Anecdotal evidence from the pharmacological industry?!?! What do you mean? When did years of scientifically structured double blind studies become "anecdotal"? I personally hate the corporate structure of the industry as I am an anti-capitalist, but to call the studies they do "anecdotal" is complete BS. No, Mr. psychic boy, you obviously have no idea what the difference between anecdotal and scientific evidence is!

When it comes to pharmacologic industry, I'm just a normal guy. I will never get to a scientific evidence, and if yes, I won't understand the jargon, and if yes, I will have no proof that the papers are not fake like cancer studies. So the other kind of evidence that I actually have and understand, is anecdotal evidence. There are two sources of this evidence, commercials in TV saying how these pills will make you feel good again, and testimonies of people who got really close to the doctors and survived. The first kind of evidence can be rejected immediately because it's a commercially biased hearsay, and as for the second one, this is where it gets interesting.

B166ER wrote:

Horoscopes? REALLY!?!?! You realize that astrology has as much scientific evidence supporting it as the "giant Panda's hold up the flat hexagonal earth" theory. Just because you were dumb enough to be fooled by some crackpots, doesn't mean they have scientific credibility. And just because you don't like something, doesn't automatically mean it has nothing but anecdotal evidence to support it.

There is the Mars effect, Kammerer's laws, and new, modern schools of astrology. But to know that you would have to study the woo, which is below every skeptic's dignity, to actually study the subject they criticize.

B166ER wrote:

Uhhh, yeah it is. No one is forcing you to be a part of this "Psychic underground", so yes, it is your fault. And being a part of anything labeled a "psychic underground" fully cements your loon status. If you fall for their BS, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd love to sell you, real cheap too.

Hey, who said that I'd ever want to quit the sub-culture of psychics? Nope, this is where I'm home, in fact, our club is registered as a civil association at my home. It's a mostly fine sub-culture with a lot of good people. But I'm such a "best of both worlds" guy. Woo, this is Science. Science, this is Woo. Shake your hands, exchange business cards, take a seat and talk to each other.

B166ER wrote:

So the theory of gravity is fantasy? Germ theory? Theory of Relativity?

These theories are valuable, because they describe how it works in practice.

B166ER wrote:

Dude, you're a kook who needs a healthy does of dewooifacation. Ever hear of James Randi, Go look him up, he spent his career showing why those charlatans you associate with are nothing more then that.

Yes, I heard of James Randi. I can get over his arrogance if I don't watch him too often, but that's not how I work. I work through analyzing the experience, I practice woo every day, so I have a lot of experience. I'm not trying to deceive anyone or get people's money, so there is probably nothing that mr. Randi can do for me. Perhaps a neurologist could help, but only for purposes of study. I'd love to study my experience of woo under functional magnetic resonance imaging and I'm sure bystanding scientists would be intrigued. My brain is wired a bit differently, if I talk about woo, I mean it like hearing, sight, smell, taste, touch, and woo. If you read in science journals about cool stuff, like echolocation, side line of fishes, electric sense of sharks, you surely had to wonder how it is to have one more sense like that. Well, I know how it is like. And as I found out, this altered perception is not so uncommon among people. There is a lot to study, if scientists would pull their heads out of their academical asses. I don't mean any card tests, but scanning the brains.

B166ER wrote:

Luminon, you have done nothing for the cause of Homeopathy here but just make it look crazier then normal. HOROSCOPES?!?!?! Cripes, I thought it was just magic water "medicine", now I learn that it is all wrapped up in the "true" astronomy of Ptolemy! HAHAHA! So if you want to lose your loon status, do some research on REAL SCIENCE and then come back. You might get a better response.

Well, isn't it strange that biology, chemistry and physics fit together? So it is with astrology, homeopathy, acupuncture and other methods. It would be weird, if they wouldn't fit together. And, there is a difference between astrology and astronomy. But I don't expect someone who's much like Duffman to care about it.

OK, if that's based on personal observation too, then my evidence is anecdotal. So if a skeptic claims there is a study of something, then by this act of saying it does not become anecdotal ?

Di66en6ion wrote:

Bahaha, horoscope? Really? What a joke. I'm sorry that you don't understand how stars/planets/constellations shift and how cold reading works. I'm sure an overdose of heavy metals will cause symptoms but you ingest a small amount of every element every day so don't feed me that BS.

a) I understand how planets and constellations shift, b) by horoscope I mean a printed out circle with exact position of planets and constellations. I don't mean astrologic reading. This homeopathic methods only needs to see the chart for basic data (aspects), not to interpret it.

Di66en6ion wrote:

And you grossly overestimate the power of your senses. These repeated "tests" you refer to don't indicate much to me since your measure of what constitutes evidence has no standard. You'll wholly disregard medicine that works and call it anecdotal pharmacologic medicine then say yours is the real proven thing... sounds like someone hasn't learned projection either. And no I don't know what you mean, testing things yourself, as a scientist, is very much a part of what science is. You obviously have no clue what a theory is since you just cited the "theories" of men working in homeopathy and then just called it fantasy.

The power of my senses saves my life every day on traffic lights, and that's anecdotal evidence. The same kind I use to examine my health state and so on. As for medicine, I only have anecdotal evidence, so I judge it according to what information I have, not what I don't have. There is nothing wrong with scientific evidence and testing. I just learned to not be dependent on it, and it works. And I think more people should be like that. I'd actually expect to be praised for my interest in maintaining of health and prevention of diseases. Isn't that...eh, rational?

OK, I admit, I was pretty much metaphorical with the theory/practice thing, because one doesn't have to be an opposite of the other. I just want to say, the practice will be always more important.

Dude, Luminon, you know that you demolish your own arguments without our help... right?

Luminon wrote:

I will never get to a scientific evidence, and if yes, I won't understand the jargon, and if yes, I will have no proof that the papers are not fake like cancer studies.

First off, which fake cancer studies are you speaking of? Because of those "fake" cancer studies, my mother survived breast cancer without homeopathy or woo. Hmmmmmm...

So, you use skepticism when looking at the claims made by "Big Pharma" because they could be fake, but none at all when it comes to

Luminon wrote:

the Mars effect, Kammerer's laws, and new, modern schools of astrology.

I really don't understand. How can you be so skeptical of science yet have no skepticism when it comes to woo. It's good to be skeptical of scientific studies, but not when you then listen to some BS coming out of Deepak Chopra's mouth like its true. Skepticism has to be of EVERYTHING, not just the things you don't like.

Luminon wrote:

But to know that you would have to study the woo, which is below every skeptic's dignity

Actually, I'm quite the intellectual masochist, so I do keep up on the woo, and I still criticize it. Why, you ask; because what I've seen is BS. You keep talking about astrology and homeopathy as if it has anything to offer other then mental fluff. It doesn't. If it did, you would have REAL double blind studies with proper controls to point to. You do not.

Luminon wrote:

And as I found out, this altered perception is not so uncommon among people.

Just because many people are deluded doesn't lend any credibility to their delusion. Argument from popularity destroyed.

Luminon wrote:

There is a lot to study, if scientists would pull their heads out of their academical asses. I don't mean any card tests, but scanning the brains.

Please tell me why scientists should waste time and resources on expensive brain scans when much cheaper and easier to administer card tests showed the "psychics" to be full of it. Maybe if someone answered the card tests 100% repeatedly, then a brain scan would be appropriate. Hasn't happened yet.

So please, for your own good, use the same skepticism that you reserve for just the claims of scientist to ALL claims. Then maybe you might understand our problems with the woo.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!

Indeed, it is quite a few centuries from being perfect..... but it does a better job than most alternatives, when it is efficiently administered. That aside, the 70s and 80s provided some of the best examples of inefficiently run clinics, at least where I currently live and probably elsewhere in the world, and it is none-too-coincidental that many examples of homeopathy arose during those times.

I still maintain that 'feeling better' (AKA the placebo effect) often does a better job of alleviating symptoms (and maintaining functionality) than most so-called treatments do.

Well, I wouldn't be too hard on the 1970s. It was a volatile time. We were still recovering from the widespread and outright rejection of everything having to do with the mainstream institution of western culture at the end of the 1960s (and rightly so, in many cases). Everything completely fell apart. People felt lost and were grappling onto anything they could hold. It was also the decade that saw the birth of the most--and worst--cults, both religious and otherwise, because people were frightened and vulnerable.

It is really a matter of how much pseudo-science narrative is needed to make it convincing enough to trigger the placebo effect that these things rely upon, and is it Ok to actually sell bottled placebo. The most important thing is to somehow stop people using these things instead of real treatments where placebo doesn't work, and the health problem being addressed is potentially serious, such as with anti-Malaria pills.

You know, the problem is, that the scientific medicine doesn't work too... People get disappointed by it and then go for alternative, even without pseudo-scientific propagation. We've got a plenty of stories of our friends who got fucked up by doctors really badly. Yeah, medicinal treatments usually do something, because they're strong, even invasive, but this is no way to achieve a permanent health. Usually, another disease gets to the emptied place, because the body is still weak. Or weakened by the treatment.

I guess there must be something about alternative medicine, because I'm probably the only one of my classmates who didn't yet take a sick leave this year, and there's always someone missing. If the key to health is in not visiting doctors, I can only recommend it. The market model of medicine is obviously not suited to increase health, it reaps diseases like crops and calls it treatment.

And I've gone a 3 year stretch before without getting much more than a sneeze or two, so what? I don't take vitamins and don't eat all that great either. It means nothing except that you're willing to take anecdotal evidence as proof that something works.

It's the same thing every time, a person gets better (As if it's impossible to recover from something without the aide of medicine!) while on some crackpot alternative medicine and confirmation bias carries it the rest of the way. The only extreme plausible example would be that some forms of alternative medicine only has an effect on a very small percentage of the population so no positive effects would be seen in any clinical trials. Water doesn't carry memories in any way, shape, or form that would effect the body, get over it.

I don't know why I bother since convincing Luminon of anything other than what he already believes is impossible. I think he's the same kid that said he can experience OBEs and actually see things out of viewing distance/angle but is too lazy (cognitively dissonant) to set up an extremely simple test to prove it.

That's kind of the point, though. I do eat well and drown myself in freshly-squeezed juice at the first sign of a cold. I don't take vitamins, haven't ever had a flu shot, and don't even take so much as an aspirin, but I haven't had a flu in probably ten years (knockonwood). Everyone else I know frantically runs right out to get that flu shot every year and yet, they're still getting sick. The problem is often that people trust mainstream medicine far too implicitly, and without the slightest bit of justification.

Okay, this whole diatribe was WAAAAAY tl;dr, but I'll try to respond as best I can.

Mattness wrote:

Which is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether alternative medicine works*.

It isn't irrelevant at all. If one chooses to admit that in some cases, mainstream medicine isn't working the way it professes to, or you seem to believe, or the way it should, then I'd say exploring alternatives is a very good idea. There will be some hits and some misses, to be sure. That's no excuse to reject it all outright.

Mattness wrote:

that wouldn't vindicate the lack of evidence for homoeopathy or in any way justify it.

A general statement like "alternative medicine is effective" is meaningless.

I never said that.

Mattness wrote:

If they do show an effect, they are tested further and over the years make it into medicine.

"Over the years" is the operative phrase here. If I were sentenced to a disease that would kill me in a year in a horrible painful death, the decades-long, insufferably labyrinthine, beaurocratic, corporate, and governmental process these drugs need to go through would far outweigh most potential side effects. A process, I'd like to point out, which in that great mire becomes very little about "safety" after all is said and done. You needn't bring up thalidomide, of course.

Mattness wrote:

laws and requirements have to be met by every drug before it can be released onto the market.

I have just three things to say to this: corporate financial might, lobbyists, and government corruption. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just don't trust capitalism any more than any other political ideology.

Mattness wrote:

No post marketing risk assessment, no trials, no evidence of efficacy (in some cases not even safety) required.

And mainstream medicine also does a lot of things that at best are ineffective, at worst, make the situation worse. This isn't a valid argument.

Mattness wrote:

Sometimes there act in disagreeable or morally ambivalent ways, agreed.

You're looking at it with blinders on. It's a BUSINESS. These companies go out to neighborhood GPs and give out free samples, and then give them "incentives" for prescribing them to their patients. This isn't "disagreeable," it's morally abhorrent. This careless administration of drugs led to a best friend of mine of fifteen years going so crazy that I had to cut her out of my life, and led her to attempt a quite ugly and violent (unsuccessful) suicide. Yes, that's just anecdotal, but I've seen the damage it can do first hand.

Mattness wrote:

To take a more realistic approach: How is a drug made? Who makes them? Yes. People in flesh and blood! And hey! They might even have a conscience (hardly believable that such humans could exist). I'd wager a guess that most of those involved in pharmaceutical research, didn't spend years at the university studying pharmacology, molecular biology, cellular biology or something related, because they want to learn how to most effectively rip people off (there are far better venues for that*). In general they want to help people and cure diseases, which is a very human desire as we all can get sick including BigPharma employees and their relatives.

You're the one who's being naive. The very nature of corporations in the first place is that no one person is ever held accountable. It's why they're so dangerous. You really think those kind-hearted chemists in the lab have ANY say over decisions made by the corporation as a whole? Please. They do what they're told or they lose their jobs or worse, have their careers sabotaged for their dissent. You really need to read Karl Marx, first of all, or at least see the documentary The Corporation.

Mattness wrote:

There shouldn't be a double standard between "primitive" (and assumed to be harmless and effective without justification) and based on "modern research".

The only reasonable approach is to say "the better solution" is the one that has more (and better) evidence, whether it be primitive or the product of technology.

That was a cute little game you set up there, but no. The problem is that we are so very disconnected from the sources of our food and the environment from whence it comes. Animals in the wild don't have this problem, and they've been medicating themselves effectively and safely due to their innate knowledge of it for millions of years. Animals instinctively KNOW what plants they can eat and which they can't. We used to, and this is where a blind adherence to modern mainstream medicine is dangerous. Humans, with all the help of medical science, voluntarily choose to inject toxins into their skin. You should also read a book called Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature.

If alternative medicine actually had sufficient scientific evidence supporting it and was shown to be effective in double blind studies, it would be called medicine.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

Humans, with all the help of medical science, voluntarily choose to inject toxins into their skin.

Ok, that pretty much settles it. Futile to try and reasonably argue with you about the interpretation of scientific evidence, when you're that far removed. I shall happily continue to resort to "toxins" in case I should get seriously ill and help fund the evil capitalistic corporations thereby, as you shall be happy to eat flowers, sugar pills or realign your chi.

Humans, with all the help of medical science, voluntarily choose to inject toxins into their skin.

Ok, that pretty much settles it. Futile to try and reasonably argue with you about the interpretation of scientific evidence, when you're that far removed. I shall happily continue to resort to "toxins" in case I should get seriously ill and help fund the evil capitalistic corporations thereby, as you shall be happy to eat flowers, sugar pills or realign your chi.

Way to focus on the least pertinent statement in my whole response. FYI, I'm no more into new agey stuff than I am Big Pharma.

Dude, Luminon, you know that you demolish your own arguments without our help... right?

Luminon wrote:

I will never get to a scientific evidence, and if yes, I won't understand the jargon, and if yes, I will have no proof that the papers are not fake like cancer studies.

First off, which fake cancer studies are you speaking of? Because of those "fake" cancer studies, my mother survived breast cancer without homeopathy or woo. Hmmmmmm...

Treatment of cancer is today a big risk, the cure is often worse than cancer itself. It's like a bet on who will die first, if tumor or patient. Many chemotherapy substances were originally chemical weapons. And so, as I have read, doctors get statistical thumbs up if one type of cancer disappears, but when another one appears elsewhere, it's taken as a new disease. Survival for a few years also counts. What doesn't count, is the great pressure on a patient to attempt suicide with chemotherapy and irradiation, because "it's the best available cure and the only chance."

I really don't understand. How can you be so skeptical of science yet have no skepticism when it comes to woo. It's good to be skeptical of scientific studies, but not when you then listen to some BS coming out of Deepak Chopra's mouth like its true. Skepticism has to be of EVERYTHING, not just the things you don't like.

The answer is simple. Woo is my daily bread for most of my life, I see how it works, I know people around it, many of them are my friends. I know about it more than anyone else from a distance. I learned to distinguish quackery from a real work. There are people who have a great positive impact on their surroundings. And there are also people, who misuse their abilities just to make money and be admired. There are all sorts of people, as everywhere. Only skeptics that don't know this area of life can say, that all psychics are conmen.

But it's also true, that there are almost no scientists among our community, at least not in regular contact with us. This is why my access to scientific community is limited. It's actually very beneficial if some of us study scientific theories and then explain them to the community. There is an interest on our side, but there is a severe lack of communication, contact and cooperation. This leads to many misunderstandings, as you see on me, and as I see on all skeptics Ive ever met.

B166ER wrote:

Actually, I'm quite the intellectual masochist, so I do keep up on the woo, and I still criticize it. Why, you ask; because what I've seen is BS. You keep talking about astrology and homeopathy as if it has anything to offer other then mental fluff. It doesn't. If it did, you would have REAL double blind studies with proper controls to point to. You do not.

I'm a son of a professional astrologer, founder of a modern astrologic school and author of two books, (one will be this year published in USA) with many next books in preparation. As such, I can see how this new, modern astrology works, it's far from it's medieval version that is still prolific today.But indeed, you must be a real martyr of study, because not even I read up on all the woo there is. My experience allows me to get rid of all information that is weak, diluted and useless. I don't seek this weak stuff, like Deepak Chopra, it may be good for beginners, but there is low density of real information per page. I care to study only the sources that proved themselves to be real and useful. Majority of the woo literature is indeed BS - this is what you get if there is no order in the whole sub-culture, no standards that the scientific community has. There are gems of knowledge lost among complete crap or warm, feely-goody nonsense. Someone who has no experience "from the inside" has no idea what to search for. If you're lost without double blind studies and proper controls, welcome to the jungle. I believe that proper standards may be brought to the woo community through peaceful cooperation and mutual trust, but so far, I saw only disdain from scientists. And yet, there are some of them who independently found out esoteric ideas and would find much more inspiration from us.

B166ER wrote:

Just because many people are deluded doesn't lend any credibility to their delusion. Argument from popularity destroyed.

Geeez. What argument from popularity? That's argument from existence. It exists, therefore it exists, but it's still unknown and not examined if there is or isn't any credibility.

B166ER wrote:

Please tell me why scientists should waste time and resources on expensive brain scans when much cheaper and easier to administer card tests showed the "psychics" to be full of it. Maybe if someone answered the card tests 100% repeatedly, then a brain scan would be appropriate. Hasn't happened yet.

Sure! Because unlike what you may think, I don't know many people who could guess hidden symbols cards with some great precision. My own woo skills are mostly associated with control of so-called "energy". In other very blunt words, imagine Reich's orgone as it concentrates around, precipitates into semi-solid form, moves according to the psychic's will and then, for example, is used for healing, warming up, alteration of consciousness, and many other purposes. And I'm very, very curious what does my brain do, when I (or anyone else with this ability) work with the energy of aether (or whatever it really is). This is something that should be very easily measured, because it should be unmistakable on brain activity scans. If scientists can identify a single command to move finger or a specific thought on the scan, then aetherokinesis, should be OBVIOUS. It won't help me guess any cards, but it should show a fascinating new phenomenon to study and it's very easy for me to replicate.

B166ER wrote:

So please, for your own good, use the same skepticism that you reserve for just the claims of scientist to ALL claims. Then maybe you might understand our problems with the woo.

Ok, that's what I already do and there's a lot of rejected woo I left behind. I show my interest only in the areas that are either confirmed by my investigation, or not yet known to me. But my skepticism towards the scientists isn't in what they discover. It's in what they don't discover, because they're very specialized, if I say it politely. There is nothing wrong about specialization, if there is communication with differently specialized people, but there isn't. Instead, there is arrogance in being convinced that their way is the only right one. I doubt there is any willingness to cooperate with local woo communities. Scientists don't hesitate to send their people to tribal witch doctors and learn their herbal cures from them, but they would not do the same with psychics of the modern european countries. If yes, then only with disdain and to influence public opinion in their favor. This is not a way to solution, this will only create martyrs and more social popularity for underground movement.

And this thread makes me glad to take the occasional break from the boards. Seriously guys, you're not going to get anywhere with Luminon on this one. I all but gave up ages ago when he tried to tell me that medical evidence, which has been rigorously tested and published in many journals, counted as "anecdotal" because he couldn't do the tests himself...

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss

And this thread makes me glad to take the occasional break from the boards. Seriously guys, you're not going to get anywhere with Luminon on this one. I all but gave up ages ago when he tried to tell me that medical evidence, which has been rigorously tested and published in many journals, counted as "anecdotal" because he couldn't do the tests himself...

Philosophically speaking, you want me to believe that behind 9 mountains, behind 9 forests and behind 9 rivers there were some rigorous tests and journals. Perhaps they were, perhaps not. I really want to believe, but I'm not allowed, it's just a rumor, an anecdote, there's no way to be 100% sure. Should I rather choose the simpliest possible explanation? You see, this is reversedly applied logic of skepticism. If that pisses you off, remeber, this is how others see you. I prepare an article on that topic. This will make you take a break from the boards for a month! Don't you understand? I'm trying to show a proverbial mirror to you. It's your fault that you take everything so personally.

I've said it before looneyman, you're one fucked up fool. And from what you admit about your parents' own lunacies, never had much chance to be anything different.

Good to hear your health is keeping up though. So is it often with idiots - nature has a knack of providing individuals with such small compensations now and then to make up for what they lack in other areas.